Negotiation in the BASK is aimed at agreement, not victory. The Checklist states it as reaches mutually acceptable agreements with negotiating parties within and outside of the organization. Any option phrased as securing the most favorable possible terms is wrong on its face.
The five named examples
The key concept "Negotiation tactics, strategies and styles" names: perspective taking; principled bargaining; auction; interest-based bargaining; position-based bargaining.
- Arbitration is NOT one of them, nor is mediation or conciliation; those are dispute-resolution forums.
- Anchoring, framing, concession trading, pattern bargaining and coalition bargaining are also absent. Distractors are built almost entirely from these plausible extras.
Indicators for all HR professionals
There are six for all HR professionals. Ones to know:
- Offers appropriate concessions to promote progress toward an agreement.
- Adheres to applicable negotiation- and bargaining-related laws and regulations.
- Identifies an ideal solution or end state for negotiations, monitors and evaluates progress toward it, and ends negotiations when appropriate.
- Maintains a professional demeanor throughout.
Advanced-only, so never the SHRM-CP answer: achieving a mutually acceptable agreement in difficult and complex negotiations, and defining the parameters of negotiating boundaries on behalf of the HR unit. Note that "manages and resolves conflicts by identifying areas of common interest" is the Conflict Management statement, not Negotiation.
Applying them
- A manager wants to table a benefit that may not comply with bargaining regulations. Confirm it against the applicable laws before it is tabled. Legal review after signing reverses the sequence and may commit the organization to an unlawful term; tabling it with a promise to withdraw later undermines good faith.
- Vendor talks have run four sessions past target, the vendor keeps reopening settled items, and terms now fall short of the defined end state. Evaluate progress against that end state and end the negotiation. Continuing is sunk-cost reasoning; accepting terms already judged inadequate is worse; escalating skips the evaluation the indicator assigns to you.
Carry this in: the end state you defined at the outset is the yardstick, and walking away is a listed, legitimate move.